On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 21:06:45 +0000 Brian Drummond <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect we need two : release and current. More than that ... I > would agree... >
How about this as a two-branch naming convention? (Old release branches can be retired). Remember, a naming convention is only used if needed. When it makes sense to go directly from -current to -rel, then there is no compulsion to go through -dev and -rc stages. If a release never needs a patch, then there is absolutely no compulsion to make a -rel_p tag. branch: -current tag: -stable_X.(Y+1).1 -stable_X.(Y+1).2 -stable_X.(Y+1).n branch: -release_X.Y tag: -dev1 -dev2 -dev(n) -rc1 -rc2 -rc(n) -rel -rel_p1 -rel_p2 -rel_p(n) There might have been a terminology issue earlier in this brainstorming session. A primary goal is to have an accurate record of development with reliable labeling conventions and a common way to refer to moments in the development history. Concurrent threads of highly variegated development (within this project) is not what is being proposed. [branch]: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Branch [tag]: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Tag _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
